Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Washington State: Kids could be stuck in booster seats until 16
The Everett Herald ^ | May 11, 2007 | Scott Pesznecker and Melissa Slager

Posted on 05/11/2007 6:54:57 AM PDT by Stoat

Thousands of Washington children will be forced back into car and booster seats next month when a change to state law takes effect.

On June 1, children will have to stay in the safety seats until they are at least 8 years old or 4 feet, 9 inches tall.

Violators face a $112 ticket.

About half of all children between 6 to 8 years old will be affected by the change, according to safety advocates.

"It's going to be a big challenge for those kids who have been out of the booster seat to get back," said Shawneri Guzman of Snohomish County SAFE KIDS, a nonprofit group that works to prevent childhood injuries.

The change means parents such as Renee Shonko, 44, of Lake Stevens must break the news to their children.

Daughters Lexi, 8, and Karly, 10, aren't exactly thrilled to be going back into booster seats.

"I don't like it," said Karly, who at 4-foot-8 (with shoes on) is taller than most of her classmates. But that's not tall enough for a seat belt to fit her properly.

Currently, children are required to ride in booster seats until they're 6 years old or weigh 60 pounds.

The changes also require children to use booster seats until they are 16 years old if a vehicle's seat belt does not properly fit the child.

Another change requires children younger than 13 to ride in the back seat whenever possible. They're allowed to ride in the front only if the vehicle has no lap-and-shoulder belts in the back seat.


 

(Excerpt) Read more at heraldnet.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: automotive; booster; boosterseat; cars; driving; kids; nannystate; nocrimeinwashington; safetynazis; stupidity; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-270 next last
To: kittymyrib
Well, that ought to cut down on teens having sex....

LOL

141 posted on 05/11/2007 8:55:24 AM PDT by Maynerd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

LOL, you wish!

Sad truth is many of them will have melted brains watered down by liberalism, obediently chanting the mantra by that time.


142 posted on 05/11/2007 8:55:41 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
including 1 hitting the side of a moving car, me full speed.

Me, too - I was perfecting the "no hands, full speed" maneuver.

I was luckier than you though, just broke the bike.

143 posted on 05/11/2007 9:00:18 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife

“The safety officer said the children were statistically safer in the bright-yellow school bus than in Mom’s SUV. MANY parents were outraged. They wanted to shuttle their children to and from school.”

It’s probably true.

But apparently statistics only apply to “public” items.

Statistically, your chances of being in any kind of accident are slim.

Hence, there’s really not enough incentive to go through all this cost for a rare benefit.


144 posted on 05/11/2007 9:00:43 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Sure, sure sure... Drop one lousy letter and it's, "Ho, ho ho."
;O)
145 posted on 05/11/2007 9:03:27 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

yes, before the booster seat craze we used to buy little gadgets that brought the shoulder strap down lower.
I don’t know why the booster seats are supposed to be any better than the inexpensive gadgets.

Somebody somewhere lobbied for this with a nice profit in mind.


146 posted on 05/11/2007 9:03:40 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

What a shame you won’t be able to assist your friends and neighbors, but I agree with you in regard to the expense not being justifiable.

I agree with all of the other posters in regard to how did any of us survive without the nanny state telling us how to live our lives.

It is really getting out of hand, but I don’t see how to stem the tide, as an entire generation is being brought up with the (mistaken) idea that the government is there to hold their hand........


147 posted on 05/11/2007 9:03:50 AM PDT by Gabz (Nemo me impune lacessit (Latin for "No-one provokes me with impunity"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
That, and SUVs are legally trucks, while station wagons are legally cars.

Auto makers had to kill the station wagons because they hurt the passenger car CAFE requirements.

SUVs don’t count against the passenger car Corporate Average Fuel Economy stats.

So, in the name of saving fuel, the 25 MPG station wagon has been replaced by the 12 MPG SUV...

148 posted on 05/11/2007 9:06:28 AM PDT by null and void (The truth. It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

I would have been in one until Hight School. ROTFLOL Fat chance ;)


149 posted on 05/11/2007 9:11:03 AM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04

I thought there was a law on tinted windows as well...


150 posted on 05/11/2007 9:11:40 AM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Only a matter of time before they take their cause to other heightened challenged people, regardless age. Because under the Equal Protection Clause everyone must be treated equally, no?

And I will reiterate was someone else here said....does this apply to schoolbuses as well?


151 posted on 05/11/2007 9:13:39 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (Truth : Liberals :: Kryptonite : Superman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
I would have been in one until High School. ROTFLOL Fat chance ;)

So, I gather then that you were ALSO a troublemaker in High School?

Scofflaw! 

"snicker"

 

152 posted on 05/11/2007 9:15:38 AM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Libertina

see post 80


153 posted on 05/11/2007 9:15:51 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (John 19:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Libertina; toast; Stoat; Just another Joe
Here in MO you can do whatever you want to the back windows and the driver and passenger windows can only be 30%. We left CA to raise our kids here in God’s country for a reason. Maybe, just maybe, we have a shot at 5 more years of liberty, 10 if we can keep Blunt and company in office.

Let's take this up a notch. In the states with the draconian rules on tinting, it is because the cops are afraid of their lives for getting shot, et. al. Here in MO, not only can you tint the heck out of your back windows, and 30% of your front windows, you can carry a concealed weapon in you car, loaded and at the ready, if you are over 23 years old, with no permit whatsoever. Furthermore, we are about to get the Castle Doctrine, which extends our rights to our vehicles as well as our homes for the right of self defense. Now, please, if any of your neighbors in whatever leftist states you guys live in ever ask about moving to Missouri, please tell them:

there aint nothing but red-kneck, one tooth, Bible-thumping, hillbilly, losers living in Missouri and they would be better off living in Bagdad than Missouri. Tell them whatever they don't want to hear so they don't come here and eff it up.

154 posted on 05/11/2007 9:24:38 AM PDT by kerryusama04 (John 19:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: kaboom

Well, as you probably know, head injuries are one of the leading causes of death and serious disabling injuries in car accidents. Mandatory helmet use by all car occupants could probably reduce deaths and serious injuries considerably. And a lot more cheaply, too, than all those side curtain airbags and such. No, I’m not seriously advocating it, but it does make a certain kind of sense.


155 posted on 05/11/2007 9:34:10 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Actually, neither Lexi or Karly will have to use a seat (although apparently their idiot parents have already gone out to buy two) because they are both over the age of 8.

It’s age 8 OR over 4’9”. They would only be forced to use a seat if the law was written age 8 AND over 4’9”. Sounds like the parents are opting to use the 4’9” criteria as opposed to the age criteria. Their choice!


156 posted on 05/11/2007 9:39:44 AM PDT by GatorGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Here it is, with my dog driving . . .


157 posted on 05/11/2007 9:44:50 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

I wouldn’t be surprised if these safety queens passed a law requiring kids to wear a helmut until the age of 16. That is, until scientists have perfected the inflatable body suit. Riding in the back of a pick-up will probably get you 10 years.


158 posted on 05/11/2007 9:45:34 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: e=2.71828
The paragraph further down in the law, which deals with "children less than sixteen", catches the girls.

(b) A child who is ((six)) eight years of age or older ((or weighs more than sixty pounds, the child)) or four feet nine inches or taller shall be properly restrained with the motor vehicle's safety belt properly adjusted and fastened around the child's body or an appropriately fitting ((booster seat; and)) child restraint system.

Their GOTCHA is the "properly adjusted" part. The girls are "under 16", and "8 or older"; but are "under 4'-9", so their regular seat belts can't be "properly adjusted" to fit them: it rides too close to their necks, rather than across the center of the collar bone.

159 posted on 05/11/2007 9:49:07 AM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GatorGirl
Actually, neither Lexi or Karly will have to use a seat (although apparently their idiot parents have already gone out to buy two) because they are both over the age of 8.

It’s age 8 OR over 4’9”. They would only be forced to use a seat if the law was written age 8 AND over 4’9”. Sounds like the parents are opting to use the 4’9” criteria as opposed to the age criteria. Their choice!

 

Well, there's also this fascist catch-all:

"The changes also require children to use booster seats until they are 16 years old if a vehicle's seat belt does not properly fit the child"

I believe that by definition all conventional seat belts are "adult" belts and so would be automatically judged as 'not providing a proper fit' .

160 posted on 05/11/2007 9:51:17 AM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-270 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson